Some say that McCain’s strongest point is his desire to take the war to the enemy. But to me Bush’s weakest point was the fact that he never properly identified his enemy. Neither has McCain.
Mitt on the otherhand has indeed identified Global Jihadism as the enemy and he did it a long time ago. When I heard him speak in Baton Rouge near the beginning of the race he was talking about Global Jihadism. Don’t we want someone who will take the battle to the enemy instead of reacting to the enemy? I do.
Here is Mr. Phares making that exact point.
Senator McCain says it is Radical Islam, and pledges to increase the current level of involvement. On Iraq, the former Navy Pilot says he will continue to fight till there are no more enemies to fight. To me that is a trenches battlefield: Well pound them till they have no more trenches. Governor Romney says the enemy is Global Jihadism, and it has more than the one battlefield of Iraq. And because the Jihadists are in control of regimes, interests and omnipresent in the region and worldwide, the US counter strategies cannot and should not be limited to entrenchment but to counter attacks, preemptive moves and putting allies forces on the existing and new battlefields. Besides not all confrontations have to be militarily. The difference in wording between the general term radical Islam and the focused threat doctrine Jihadism says it all. One leads to concentrate one type of power in one place, regardless of what the enemy is and wants to do, and the other concept lead to pinch the foe from many places on multiple levels and decide over the ending process of the conflict.